Harrell vs. Barnhart (5th Cir. 2001)

Federal Circuits, 5th Cir. (December 18, 2001)

Docket number: 01-60334

Permanent Link: http://vlex.com/vid/harrell-vs-barnhart-18415855
Id. vLex: VLEX-18415855

Click here to download this article in graphic format (Acrobat Reader)

Document language

Request manual translation

Search in this document

Document options

Citations:

Loading article preview... cerrar

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Cir. - 49 Soc.Sec.Rep.Ser. 112, Unempl.Ins.Rep. (Cch) P 14847B Travis Ripley, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Shirley S. Chater, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee., 67 F.3d 552 (5th Cir. 1995)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Cir. - Alvin R. Harrell, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Otis R. Bowen, M.D., Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appellee. No. 88-1377. Summary Calendar., 862 F.2d 471 (5th Cir. 1988)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Cir. - Kernis J. Johnson, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Otis R. Bowen, M.D., Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appellee. No. 88-4521. Summary Calendar., 864 F.2d 340 (5th Cir. 1988)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Cir. - Delia C. Griego, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Louis W. Sullivan, M.D., Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appellee. No. 91-1018. Summary Calendar., 940 F.2d 942 (5th Cir. 1991)

See other documents that cite the same legislation

Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-60334 Summary Calendar RETHA J. HARRELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus JO ANNE B. BARNHART, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi (4:99-CV-135-LG) December 17, 2001 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, AND BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: * Plaintiff-Appellant Retha J. Harrell appeals the district court§ 405(g) lawsuit seeking review of the denial of disability benefits and supplemental security income. Harrell argues that the decision issued by the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) was contrary to the weight of the law and evidence and that the ALJ applied the wrong legal standards in determining that Harrell was not fully credible regarding her subjective complaints.

Our review of the ALJÂ’s decision Â“is limite d to determining whether that decision is supported by substantial e vidence and whether the proper legal standards were applied.Â” R i pley v. Chate r , 67 F.3d 552, 555 (5th Cir. 1995). A finding of no substantial evidence is appropriate only if no credible evidentiary choices or medical findings support the decision. J ohnson v. Bowen , 864 F.2d 340, 343-44 (5th Cir. 1988).

The ALJ consi dered all of the evidence presented at the administrative hearing as well as all of HarrellÂ’s medical records and subjective complaints. The ALJ determined that although Harrell had severe impairments, she was still capable of performing substantial gainful activity. These findings are supported by substantial evidence. See Johnson , 864 F.2d at 343-44.

Furthermore, the ALJ has primary responsibility for assessing the credibility of the claimantÂ’s subjective complaints. S ee Harrell v. Bowen , 862 F.2d 471, 480 (5th Cir. 1988). In this matter, the ALJ properly considered HarrellÂ’s subjective complaints and determine d that the objective medical evidence and her testimony regarding her daily activities were inconsistent with her subjective complaints. I t was within the ALJÂ’s discretion to make such determination. S ee Griego v. Sullivan , 940 F.2d 942, 945 (5th Cir. 1991).

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4